Basically, the Sierra Club and others took the U.S. Forest Service (and then the state of Arizona) to court over lead ammunition.
On the other hand, in the same provision that gives USFS control over federal forests, Congress specified that USFS’s authority “shall [not] be construed . . . to require Federal permits to hunt and fish . . . on lands in the National Forest System.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). And Congress has provided in recent appropriations acts that “[n]one of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to regulate the lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) or any other law.” Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 107-103, sec. 2, div. G, tit. IV, § 438, 136 Stat. 421 (2022). The implication of this restriction is not immediately clear to us. USFS has not argued to us that this provision outright bars the relief CBD seeks.1 We do not know the scope of the appropriations restriction and whether it would prohibit USFS from, for example, conducting a rulemaking to regulate lead use in the nation’s forests, but such provisions would surely test the current limits of USFS’s general authority. See United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1172–73 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that federal courts may enforce an appropriations rider restricting the Department of Justice from using funds to prevent states from implementing their own laws with respect to marijuana use). We do not refer to these provisions to suggest that USFS can or cannot use its existing authority to regulate the use of lead ammunition, but to demonstrate that, whatever the scope of USFS’s authority, Congress has not directed USFS to regulate hunters’ use of lead shot on federal lands.
Here is the decision. It’s a lengthy one and the read can study it for himself, but basically, the ninth circuit told the Sierra Club to go away. It’s the right decision.
I recently ordered two boxes of copper bullet cartridges at significant expense to me compared to lead bullets. First of all, I like what I see on ballistic tests of copper ammunition (i.e., the beautiful and symmetric bullet flower petal). Second, I like the weight retention inherent in the design, and the fact that the meat isn’t contaminated. That’s a big deal.
Third, I like the fact that I am helping not to adversely affect birds of prey or other animals that eat the remains of what I might have to leave behind. But that’s the third reason, not the first two.
I want to have the option to use copper ammunition, and if it’s safer for the environment, I think hunters and the shooting community should lead the way. I’m all in on that.
What I don’t want is to be told what I can and can’t do by a controller.
a